Comparison of open and endovascular left subclavian artery revascularization for zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage, routine preoperative LSA revascularization is recommended. However, in the current endovascular era, the optimal surgical approach is debated. We compared baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open or endovascular LSA revascularization in the setting of TEVAR. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing TEVAR with zone 2 proximal landing and LSA revascularization between 2013 and 2023 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative. We excluded patients with traumatic aortic injury, aortic thrombus, or ruptured presentations, and stratified based on revascularization type (open vs any endovascular). Open LSA revascularization included surgical bypass or transposition. Endovascular LSA revascularization included single-branch, fenestration, or parallel stent grafting. Primary outcomes were stroke, spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and perioperative mortality (Pearson's χ2 test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between revascularization type and primary outcomes. Secondarily, we studied other in-hospital complications and 5-year mortality (Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression). Sensitivity analyses were performed in patients undergoing concomitant LSA revascularization to TEVAR. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 1842 (74%) underwent open and 647 (26%) endovascular LSA revascularization. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between open and endovascular cohorts. Compared with open, endovascular revascularization had shorter procedure times (median, 135 minutes vs 174 minutes; P < .001), longer fluoroscopy times (median, 23 minutes vs 16 minutes; P < .001), lower estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 123 mL; P < .001), and less preoperative spinal drain use (40% vs 49%; P < .001). Patients undergoing endovascular revascularization were more likely to present urgently (24% vs 19%) or emergently (7.4% vs 3.4%) (P < .001). Compared with open, endovascular patients experienced lower stroke rates (2.6% vs 4.8%; P = .026; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.90]), but had comparable SCI (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .60; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.31-1.22]) and perioperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.3%; P = .94; aOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34-1.37]). Compared with open, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of overall composite in-hospital complications (20% vs 27%; P < .001; aOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]) and shorter overall hospital stay (7 vs 8 days; P < .001). After adjustment, 5-year mortality was similar among groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis with similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR starting in zone 2, endovascular LSA revascularization had lower rates of postoperative stroke and overall composite in-hospital complications, but similar SCI, perioperative mortality, and 5-year mortality rates compared with open LSA revascularization. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the mid- to long-term safety of endovascular LSA revascularization and assess differences between specific endovascular techniques.

Surgery or endovascular therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia requiring infrapopliteal interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The recent publication of randomized trials comparing open bypass surgery to endovascular therapy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, namely, Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) and Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2), has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomical disease patterns and primary end points. We performed an analysis of patients in BEST-CLI with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator with the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in BEST-CLI with adequate single segment saphenous vein conduit randomized to open bypass or endovascular intervention (cohort 1) who additionally had significant infrapopliteal disease and underwent tibial level intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse limb event (MALE) or all-cause death. MALE included any major limb amputation or major reintervention. Outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: The analyzed subgroup included a total of 665 patients with 326 in the open tibial bypass group and 339 in the tibial endovascular intervention group. The primary outcome of MALE or all-cause death at 3 years was significantly lower in the surgical group at 48.5% compared with 56.7% in the endovascular group (P = .0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs 35.8% endovascular; P = .94), whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs 35.0%; P<.0001). This difference included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared with the endovascular group (20.2%; P = .0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared with 45.3% the endovascular group (P = .30); however, there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared with the endovascular group (19.3%; P = .0205). Perioperative (30-day) death rates were similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; P = .93), as was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and fewer major amputation compared with endovascular intervention. Amputation-free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomical extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

The rise of endovascular repair for abdominal, thoracoabdominal, and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in intervention guidelines and the growing popularity of endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysms, we examined the trends in admissions and repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs), and thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs). METHODS: We identified all patients admitted with ruptured aortic aneurysms and intact aortic aneurysms repaired in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2019. We then examined the use of open, endovascular, and complex endovascular repair (OAR, EVAR, and cEVAR) for each aortic aneurysm location (AAA, TAAA, and TAA), alongside their resulting in-hospital mortality, over time. cEVAR included branched, fenestrated, and physician-modified endografts. RESULTS: 715,570 patients were identified with AAA (87% intact repairs and 13% rupture admissions). Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions decreased significantly between 2004 and 2019 (intact 41,060-34,215, P < .01; ruptured 7175-4625, P = .02). Of all AAA repairs performed in a given year, the use of EVAR increased (2004-2019: intact 45%-66%, P < .01; ruptured 10%-55%, P < .01) as well as cEVAR (2010-2019: intact 0%-23%, P < .01; ruptured 0%-14%, P < .01). Mortality after EVAR of intact AAAs decreased significantly by 29% (2004-2019, 0.73%-0.52%, P < .01), whereas mortality after OAR increased significantly by 16% (2004-2019, 4.4%-5.1%, P < .01). In the study, 27,443 patients were identified with TAAA (80% intact and 20% ruptured). In the same period, intact TAAA repairs trended upward (2004-2019, 1435-1640, P = .055), and cEVAR became the most common approach (2004-2019, 3.8%-72%, P = .055). A total of 141,651 patients were identified with ascending, arch, or descending TAAs (90% intact and 10% ruptured). Intact TAA repairs increased significantly (2004-2019, 4380-10,855, P < .01). From 2017 to 2019, the mortality after OAR of descending TAAs increased and mortality after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair decreased (2017-2019, OAR 1.6%-3.1%; thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair 5.2%-3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Both intact AAA repairs and ruptured AAA admissions significantly decreased between 2004 and 2019. The use of endovascular techniques for the repair of all aortic aneurysm locations, both intact and ruptured, increased over the past two decades. Most recently in 2019, 89% of intact AAA repairs, infrarenal through suprarenal, were endovascular (EVAR or cEVAR, respectively). cEVAR alone increased to 23% of intact AAA repairs in 2019, from 0% a decade earlier. In this period of innovation, with many new options to repair aortic aneurysms while maintaining arterial branches, endovascular repair is now used for the majority of all intact aortic aneurysm repairs. Long-term data are needed to evaluate the durability of these procedures.

Retrograde Tibio-Pedal Access for Endovascular Interventions for Treating Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Retrograde tibio-pedal access represents a feasible method for endovascular revascularization when antegrade methods fail. The article offers an extensive review of retrograde tibio-pedal access, emphasizing the technique and documented outcomes.

Comparative outcomes of open mesenteric bypass after a failed endovascular or open mesenteric revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines have recommended an endovascular-first approach (ENDO) for the management of patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), whereas an open mesenteric bypass (OMB) is proposed for subjects deemed to be poor ENDO candidates. However, the impact of a previous failed endovascular or open mesenteric reconstruction on a subsequent OMB is unknown. Accordingly, this study was designed to examine the results of a remedial OMB (R-OMB) after a failed ENDO or a primary OMB (P-OMB) for patients with recurrent CMI. METHODS: All patients who underwent an OMB from 2002 to 2022 at the University of Florida were reviewed. Outcomes after an R-OMB (ie, history of a failed ENDO or P-OMB) and P-OMB were compared. The primary end point was 30-day mortality, whereas secondary outcomes included complications, reintervention, and survival. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from reintervention and all-cause mortality, whereas multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling identified predictors of death. RESULTS: A total of 145 OMB procedures (R-OMB, n = 48 [33%]; P-OMB, n = 97 [67%]) were analyzed. A majority of R-OMB operations were performed for a failed stent (prior ENDO, n = 39 [81%]; prior OMB, n = 9 [19%]). R-OMB patients were generally younger (66 ± 9 years vs P-OMB, 69 ± 11 years; P = .09) and had lower incidence of smoking exposure (29% vs P-OMB, 48%; P = .07); however, there were no other differences in demographics or comorbidities. R-OMB was associated with less intraoperative transfusion (0.6 units vs P-OMB, 1.4 units; P = .01), but there were no differences in conduit choice or bypass configuration.The overall 30-day mortality and complication rates were 7% (n = 10/145) and 53% (n = 77/145), respectively, with no difference between the groups. Notably, R-OMB had decreased cardiac (6% vs P-OMB, 21%; P < .01) and bleeding complication rates (2% vs P-OMB, 15%; P = .01). The freedom from reintervention (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 95% ± 4%, 83% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 97% ± 2%, 93% ± 5%, respectively; log-rank P = .21) and survival (1 and 5 years: R-OMB: 82% ± 6%, 68% ± 9% vs P-OMB: 84% ± 4%, 66% ± 7%; P = .91) were similar. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included new postoperative hemodialysis requirement (hazard ratio [HR], 7.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-17.3; P < .001), pulmonary (HR, 2.7, 95% CI, 1.4-5.3; P = .004) and cardiac (HR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .04) complications, and female sex (HR, 2.1, 95% CI, 1.03-4.8; P = .04). Notably, R-OMB was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative and longer-term outcomes for a remedial OMB after a failed intraluminal stent or previous open bypass appear to be comparable to a P-OMB. These findings support the recently updated clinical practice guideline recommendations for an endovascular-first approach to treating recurrent CMI due to the significant perioperative complication risk of OMB. However, among the subset of patients deemed ineligible for endoluminal reconstruction after failed mesenteric revascularization, R-OMB results appear to be acceptable and highlight the utility of this strategy in selected patients.

A registry-based study of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoral-popliteal artery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of a prospective, single-arm, registry-based study assessing the safety and performance of a paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) or popliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) in a United States population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, multi-center, single-arm, post-market registry of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB for the treatment of ISR lesions in the SFA or popliteal artery at 43 sites within the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) Registry from December 2016 to January 2020. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included technical success, target vessel revascularization, major limb amputation, and all-cause mortality. Results are presented as survival probabilities based on Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: Patients (N = 300) were 58% male, with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years. Diabetes was present in 56%, 80% presented with claudication, and 20% with rest pain. Lesions included ISR of the SFA in 68%, SFA-popliteal in 26%, and popliteal arteries in 7%. The mean lesion length was 17.8 ± 11.8 cm. Lesions were categorized as occlusions in 43% (mean occluded length, 16 ± 10 cm). TASC type was A (17%), B (29%), C (38%), and D (15%). Technical success was 99%. Re-stenting was performed in 5% and thrombolysis in 0.6% of patients. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from target lesion revascularization were 90%, 72%, and 62% at 12, 24, and 36 months. Freedom from target vessel revascularization was 88%, 68%, and 59% and freedom from major target limb amputation was 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.9%, respectively, at 12, 24, and 36 months. Survival was 95%, 89%, and 85% at 12, 24, and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: This post-market registry-based study shows promising results in treating femoral-popliteal ISR with paclitaxel DCB in comparison to the results of plain balloon angioplasty reported in the literature. These results demonstrate the ability of the SVS VQI to conduct post-market evaluation of peripheral devices in partnership with industry and federal regulators.